US Pilots Labor Thread 7/7-7/14 - NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[Captain Underpants]

My goodness. Now the noble USAPA is going to hold the 32000 employees of USAirways hostage so you can be rewarded with your "rightful" seniority.

USAPA cannot control how the pilots vote. USAPA can't hold anyone hostage. That is the fatal flaw of the force the Nic agenda.

I simply expect each pilot to make a rational decision to vote in his own self interest or to make a rational choice to prevent an injustice to his fellow pilot. Would you vote for any contract that subtracts 17 years of your seniority taking the huge loss in pay and lifestyle so a corresponding West pilot could gain the windfall?

There are also many pilots excluding you of course who would cast an honorable and noble vote to prevent an injustice to the same pilots who have been watching your 6 and keeping you out of trouble for all these years.

underpants

 

[luvn737s]

The so-called "fear card" can and will be played again precisely because they know exactly how the pilots will react. Unless USAPA pulls the entire pilot group together, they are a toothless, de-clawed tiger with a pitiful snarl.

 

[luvn737s]

Nope- I think USAPA has run out of pilots willing to fall on their swords in support of Cleary's fear mongering. Reality is sinking in and the east pilots are seeing that the fears of western invasion have been overblown in order to cement Cleary and Co.'s power. It's not about protecting pilots. it never has been.

 

[ableoneable]

USAPA cannot control how the pilots vote. USAPA can't hold anyone hostage. That is the fatal flaw of the force the Nic agenda.

I simply expect each pilot to make a rational decision to vote in his own self interest or to make a rational choice to prevent an injustice to his fellow pilot. Would you vote for any contract that subtracts 17 years of your seniority taking the huge loss in pay and lifestyle so a corresponding West pilot could gain the windfall?

There are also many pilots excluding you of course who would cast an honorable and noble vote to prevent an injustice to the same pilots who have been watching your 6 and keeping you out of trouble for all these years.

underpants

The true injustice is east pilots attempting to place furloughed pilots ahead of lineholders, reserve FOs ahead of lineholding captains and claiming that their years of service at another carrier entitle them to recover their misfortunes from the hides of another pilot group.

It is the east pilots who attempted to gain a windfall at the expense of the west pilots.

A west pilot being able to hold the same seat/equipment/schedule on the day after integration as he/she could the day before is not a windfall. The list of people who see it this way includes; Nicolau, the two neutrals, the arbitrators in the Northwest/Delta merger and a Federal Judge.

 

[cleardirect]

Yes I agree. The company won't risk liquidation to force the Nic. A fair seniority integration will be an absolute requirement to any save the company restructuring deals or merger agreements. No judge will risk company failure and the loss of all the employees jobs just to force an unfair pilot seniority integration.

The fear card was played here once before and can't be played again. The company shed all post retirement obligations to pilots through previous bankruptcies making company survival at a certain point in time irrelevant.

The seniority problem remains. The question is how do we fix it and smooth the way for a fair contract allowing the company to survive and be competitive.

underpants

What are you not understanding? The Nicolau does not cost the company any money. Usapa has no choice but to implement the Nicolau. That is what the injunction is going to say. IF the company does come to usapa to ask for concessions. USAPA WILL BE REQUIRED to use the Nicolau. A fair list HAS been determined. A judge will have no choice but to use the Nicolau. Using the Nicolau does not risk the company or employees.

Will usapa risk liquidation to not implement the Nicolau?
Because if usapa tries to negotiate anything other than the Nicolau they will be in violation of a federal injunction. They would risk massive fines or even jail. Do you think Cleary is willing to do time for this pilot group?

There is no more seniority problem. It has been decided twice now. What you and the east pilots have is an acceptance problem. There is no “fixâ€￾. The solution has been decided. It took a federal judge to issue an injunction but it is done.
It is usapa’s problem to negotiate a fair contract that gives this pilot group what we deserve and will allow the company to survive.

But keep coming up with these far out concepts. At least they are good for a laugh.

 

[Captain Underpants]

It is usapa’s problem to negotiate a fair contract that gives this pilot group what we deserve and will allow the company to survive.

Agreed 100%!

underpants

 

[hp_fa]

VERY LENGTHY POST ALERT!

Final jury instructions page 7 of the .pdf

up

CU,

You are taking one small part of the jury instructions out of context. There were many instructions given to the jury and one of those instructions was to follow all of the provided instructions in reaching a verdict. In order to provide a complete context of what those instructions were, I now provide the complete jury instructions as they were given to the jury.



All right. Members of the jury, now that you have heard all of the evidence it is my duty to instruct you as to the law of the case. Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to the jury room to consult during your deliberations. You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may do or -- may do or say as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts, you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to
you whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices or sympathy. That means you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so. In following my instructions you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others. They are all important.

As you have heard, the defendant in this case, USAPA, is a union. When a union or labor organization is the exclusive representative of employees, the law requires that the union represent the interests of those employees in a proper manner. This duty is known as the duty of fair representation.

Once it becomes the representative, a union owes a duty of fair representation to every employee within the bargaining unit that it represents. Not every employee within a bargaining unit must be a member of that union. However, that union must represent the interests of every employee within the bargaining unit whether or not a given employee is a member of a union.

Some plaintiffs are not members of USAPA, but all plaintiffs are members of the bargaining unit represented by the defendant, USAPA. Therefore, once it was certified on April 18, 2008, USAPA owed all plaintiffs a duty to fairly represent them.

In this case, you must decide whether USAPA has breached the duty of fair representation owed to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that defendant has breached its duty. USAPA denies this claim.

If you decide that plaintiffs have proven their case, then you will have found that USAPA is liable to plaintiffs and your verdict must be for plaintiff. In that situation, it will be necessary to determine the amount of money damages owed to plaintiffs and whether other relief should be granted. But those determinations will be made in the later phase of the case by another jury or by the Court.

In this trial, you are not asked to determine the amount of any money damages owed or what other relief should be granted. If, on the other hand, you decide the plaintiffs have not proven their case, then your verdict must be for the defendant USAPA.

Now I will instruct you on the scope and nature of the union's duty of fair representation.

Unions owe their members a contractual obligation to follow their constitutions. Unions have a right to interpret their own constitutions. A union constitution, however, cannot alter the duty of fair representation. A union's conduct may still violate the duty of fair representation whether or not the conduct is consistent with the union's constitution.

A union owes a duty of fair representation only from the time that it becomes the exclusive bargaining representative. It has no duty to represent employees in a
bargaining unit before it is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the bargaining unit.

In this case, defendant USAPA was not certified to represent plaintiffs until April 18, 2008. This means that you may not base any verdict in favor of defendants upon a finding that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation before April 18, 2008.

MR. SEHAM: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I think you misread and said "defendants" when it said "plaintiffs."

THE COURT: Thank you very much for catching that. I'm going to read that again. I'm prone to switch the words around. I'm going to read that instruction again from the beginning of the paragraph.

In this case, defendant USAPA was not certified to represent plaintiffs until April 18, 2008. This means that you may not base any verdict in favor of plaintiffs upon a finding that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation before April 18, 2008. You may still consider the circumstances before USAPA was certified and USAPA's actions before then in determining whether USAPA violated its duty of fair representation on or after April 18, 2008.

A union breaches or violates its duty of fair representation when, in the course of negotiating a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the union's conduct toward a member of the bargaining unit it represents is discriminatory or in bad faith. In this case, the union violated its duty if it adopted and submitted its seniority proposal for a reason or reasons that are not union objectives. A union has a duty to represent the employees in the bargaining unit fairly and impartially. This duty includes the requirement that the union's actions must be taken in good faith and with an honest purpose.

The fact that one group of workers is adversely affected by an action taken by the union is not enough in and of itself to establish that the union has breached the duty of fair representation. In general, a union complies with its duty of fair representation if its decisions and actions were intended to promote the interests of the bargaining unit as a whole. The law allows a union to reconcile differences between two groups of workers as long as its actions are done in good faith and are not taken solely to benefit one group of workers over another but rather with an intent to benefit the bargaining unit as a whole. In determining whether the defendant USAPA's seniority proposal was intended to benefit the bargaining unit as a whole, you may consider whether USAPA properly considered the interests of all the employees in the bargaining unit before adopting its seniority proposal, as well as any promises USAPA may have made during its election campaign. Even if the union's conduct could be rationally related to a legitimate union objective, the union could still be liable for violating its duty of fair representation if its actions are shown to be solely motivated by objectives that are not legitimate union objectives.

Because the union is the exclusive bargaining representatives for the employees in the bargaining unit, it is a legitimate objective of the union to negotiate with the
employer over the terms and conditions of employment. During this negotiation or collective bargaining, the interests of all employees the union represents are to be considered. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a union bargaining to serve all the members of the unit it represents subject to good faith.

However, a union may not make seniority decisions solely to benefit a stronger, more politically favored group over a minority group. In other words, the union may not pursue seniority-related bargaining objectives solely on the basis of political expediency. Preferential representation to the numerically larger number of voters is not in and of itself a legitimate union objective.

It is a legitimate union objective to resolve the conflicting interests of members of the bargaining unit or groups of members within the bargaining unit. The law does not demand that all members be satisfied with the resolution. However, in general, it is not a legitimate union objective merely to change the outcome of a conflict that was already resolved by a procedure agreed upon by the pilot representatives. In this case, a general preference for any particular seniority system other than the Nicolau Award is not, standing alone, a legitimate union objective. The union may, however, change the outcome of a conflict that has already been resolved by a procedure agreed upon by the pilot representatives if in doing so, the union is actually motivated to further a union objective that is legitimate.

In this case, dissatisfaction with the practices or policies of the previous union, ALPA, unrelated to the merged pilot Seniority List is not a legitimate union objective.

The Nicolau Award was a final and binding resolution of the conflicting interests of the two pilot groups with respect to seniority rights. As provided in the Transition
Agreement, ALPA Merger Policy required ALPA, and consequently, USAPA, to adopt the Nicolau Award as its bargaining position and use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the employer to accept and implement the Nicolau Award. Revisiting the seniority issue in itself is not a legitimate union objective for USAPA.

However, USAPA was entitled to revisit the issue of seniority rights if it was actually motivated to further legitimate union objectives. Any new Collective Bargaining Agreement is subject to ratification or rejection by a majority vote of USAPA members.

Dissatisfaction with the procedures agreed to by the representatives of both pilot groups by which the Nicolau Award was formulated is not a legitimate union objective.

Plaintiffs contend that USAPA's articulated reason for its actions is a pretext for breaching the duty of fair representation. A "pretext" is a reason asserted to justify an act which is not the true reason for such act. When you consider plaintiffs evidence of pretext, remember that the relevant question is whether USAPA's reason was not the real reason for USAPA's actions. You are not to consider whether USAPA's reasons showed poor or erroneous judgment. You are not to consider USAPA's wisdom. However, you may consider whether USAPA's stated reason is the true reason or merely a pretext. Plaintiffs have the burden to persuade you by a preponderance of the evidence that USAPA took action against plaintiffs for improper reasons.

The parties have strong differences of opinion on which method of seniority integration or proposal is to be preferred. You are not asked to decide whether the Nicolau Award or the defendant's seniority proposal is to be preferred. You are not asked to decide whether Mr. Nicolau properly conducted the arbitration or reached a preferable result.

If you decide that USAPA was not actually motivated by a legitimate union objective in adopting and promoting its seniority proposal and did so only to enhance the rights of East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots then you must find for plaintiffs. If you decide that USAPA was actually motivated by a legitimate union objective in adopting and promoting its seniority proposal then you must find for USAPA.

In this case, the plaintiffs have the burden of proving all elements of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that that claim is more probably true than not true.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence regardless of which party presented it.

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consist of:

1. the sworn testimony of any witness;

2. the exhibits which are received into evidence; and

3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into evidence. Certain things are not evidence. And you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you.

1, arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their opening statements, will say in their closing
arguments, and at all other times is intended to help you determine the evidence but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.

2, questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the Court's ruling on it.

3, testimony that has been excluded or stricken or that you have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition sometimes testimony and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose. When I have given a limiting instruction you must follow it.

4, anything you may have seen or heard when the Court was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.
Some evidence may be admitted for a limited purpose only.

When I instruct you -- instructed you that an item of evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose, you must consider it only for that limited purpose and no other.

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact such as testimony by witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, part of it, or none of it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testified to it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:

1, the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to;

2, the witness's memory;

3, the witness's manner while testifying;

4, the witness's interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;

5, whether other evidence contradicted the witness's testimony;

6, the reasonableness of the witness's testimony in light of all the evidence; And
7, any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testified about it.

During deliberations, you will have to make your decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not have a transcript of the trial.

Whether or not you have taken notes you should rely on your own memory of the evidence. Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of your fellow jurors.

When you leave your notes should be left in the jury room. No one will read your notes and they will be destroyed at the conclusion of the case.

The parties have agreed to certain facts that have been read to you. You should therefore treat these facts as having been proved.

Certain charts and summaries not received in evidence have been shown to you in order to help explain the contents of books, records, documents, or other evidence in the case. They are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. If they do not correctly reflect the facts or figures shown by the evidence in the case, you should disregard these charts and summaries and determine the facts from the underlying evidence.

Certain charts and summaries have been received into evidence to illustrate information brought out in the trial. Charts and summaries are only as good as the underlying evidence that supports them. You should therefore give them only such weight as you think the underlying evidence deserves.

Now, at this time, we will have the opening -- or the closing arguments of counsel, after which I will give the final instructions and the jury will retire to deliberate.

(Final Arguments Here)

All right. Now, members of the jury, I'm going to give you a last few instructions and then you will retire to deliberate.

And this is on Page 15, where I left off.

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your presiding juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in court.

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can do so. Your verdict must be unanimous.

Each of you must decide the case for yourself. But you should do so only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors and listen to the views of your fellow jurors.

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right.
It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. But of course, only if each of you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note through the bailiff or the clerk signed by your presiding juror or by one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed writing. I will communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the case only in writing or here in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the parties before
answering it, which may take some time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any question.

Remember that you are not to tell any one, including me, how the jury stands, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the Court.

Now, I also want to remind you of the instruction I gave you at the outset one more time about the admonition to -- now things are different. You are deliberating. And so now is your time to consider the evidence but do not discuss the case with anyone other than your fellow jurors while you are in deliberation. Do not allow anyone to discuss the case with you. Do not do any research of any type concerning the case until you are discharged as jurors.

Now, a form of verdict has been prepared for you. Sandi, would you put the form of verdict on the projector.

After you have reached a unanimous agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, sign and date it and advise the Court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

And as you can see, the verdict reads, "We, the jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above-entitled matter find as follows:

On the plaintiff class's claim for breach of duty of fair representation against defendant USAPA," check the box this favor of plaintiffs or check the box in favor of the defendant, whichever is your unanimous verdict. And again the presiding juror will sign and date that.

 

[hp_fa]

Whats your source?

(The question referred to the germane/non germane issue.)

SECOND JOINT WRITTEN SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE BY DEFENDANT IN DAMAGES TRIAL

ISSUE:

Whether, pursuant to Rule 26©(1)(D), Defendant should be granted a Protective Order forbidding Plaintiffs from any discovery inquiry into the matter of “calculation of germane versus non-germane expenses and the analysis and auditing of those calculations by an outside accounting firm;†Or in the alternative, whether Defendant should be granted leave to file a written motion to argue for the same remedy?

MOVANT’S (DEFENDANT'S) POSITION:

Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(1) damage-trial disclosures indicate that an individual they name as likely to have discoverable information, Rob Streble, is relevant for his
knowledge of “the calculation of germane versus non-germane expenses and the analysis and auditing of those calculations by an outside accounting firm†(“Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Disclosure Statement For Damage Trial†June 15, 2009, § A. 2. ¶ 35). Plaintiffs seek, or on information and belief shall seek, discovery into this matter. Such inquiry exceeds the scope of discovery allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(B)(1). Disputes over expenses chargeable to non-members will be arbitrated later this year and have nothing to do with this case and discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This Court specifically ruled in Defendant's favor on the issue of dues and fees rejecting the remedy of disgorgement. (Doc. # 287). The Court later commented, “… this Court has now granted Defendant USAPA’s Rule 12© motion for judgment on the pleadings on that claim†(Doc. # 288 at 2:18) and termed its ruling “…USAPA’s entire victory on the issue of refunding dues and fees.†(Id at 3:14). Hence, discovery into this area is a revival of Plaintiffs’ rejected and irrelevant “dues restitution claim†and should be prohibited to avoid undue expense and unnecessarily expanding the damages trial.

RESPONDING PARTY’S (PLAINTIFFS’) POSITION:

Part of DFR damages are “the attorney's fee which [the plaintiff] incurred as a result of the union's breach.†Del Casal v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 634 F.2d 295, 301-02 (5th Cir. 1981). Courts recognize only one exception to this rule–fees incurred litigating against the union. Zuniga v. United Can Co., 812 F.2d 443, 454-55 (9th Cir. 1987). Such fees are not recoverable because that “would penalize the union for litigating the issue of whether it breached its duty of fair representation.†Id. at 453. The fees at issue here are USAPA’s fees defending the litigation. These fees do not fall under this exception. To the extent that USAPA pays these fees as a germane expense, the fees pass through pro rata to the West Pilots. Had there been no DFR breach, there would have been no litigation and no fees would have passed through to the West Pilots. These fees, therefore, were incurred as a result of the union's breach. The remedy for these fees is to award damages to Plaintiffs equal to their pro rata share of the fees USAPA paid as a germane expense. The Court, therefore, should deny the protective order sought here by
USAPA.

 

[Megasnoop]

My goodness. Now the noble USAPA is going to hold the 32000 employees of USAirways hostage so you can be rewarded with your "rightful" seniority.

More like it throws the fate of 32,000 employees on Wake's shoulders. IF the DFR survives the 9th, we're negotiating with the NIC. A couple of negative votes on a concessionary TA and Wake gets the football, since he still has the jurisdiction. Anyway, a couple NO votes and Parker has to make a decision too, which part he gets rid of. The East has the assets, not PHX and LAS, Jxx. As I said 2 threads ago, a year from now is going to be real gut check for rank and file, Parker, USAPA, AOL, and Wake. BTW, you got your mx fees up to date?

If you think forcing the Nic Award out is going to make or break any possible restructuring deal, you are mistaken. If as some posters suggest, USAirways winds up in a deal with AMR, you can be sure APA will cast USAPA adrift.

A representation vote not even required with APA holding most of the potential votes. But theyd cast ALPA adrift, too. Remember the seniority number they did on TWA?

The Nic will never be rendered moot. Binding arbitration says so, the Addington jury agreed, and so will the 9th in SFO.

We'll see how MDA, the 9th circuit, LOA84 play out. Where you sit on the list, I can see why you dont care about your fellow east pilots. Youve alredy got yours.

(The question referred to the germane/non germane issue.)

SECOND JOINT WRITTEN SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE BY DEFENDANT IN DAMAGES TRIAL

Im reading arguments, ad naseum. Not reading a "source." You know, something like the Supreme Court's decision in Hudson Vs Chicago Teachers Union. Point is, hp, feel free to speculate if it empowers you. Ill rely on the Hudson ruling. Thats where the context is, not in your legal pastes of marginal relevance.

 

[hp_fa]

Im reading arguments, ad naseum. Not reading a "source." You know, something like the Supreme Court's decision in Hudson Vs Chicago Teachers Union. Point is, hp, feel free to speculate if it empowers you. Ill rely on the Hudson ruling. Thats where the context is, not in your legal pastes of marginal relevance.

Mega,

I answered your question as asked. In my post that raised your question I even stated that I had thought that the plaintiffs were not going to raise that issue and I was personally surprised that they had.

I'm sorry but I don't have a pile of legal authority to bring to the discussion.

 

[HPDriver]

1. Then there wont be a settlement. Money is secondary to an admission the list was inaccurate. The issue is simple, were 170+ MDA pilots active or on furlough? It makes all the difference in where they end up on the NIC. A settlement just isn’t in the cards without an ALPA admission of an inaccurate list. Its probably cheaper for ALPA to admit an “honestâ€￾ mistake than to pay MDA guys.

2. It will have a HUGE bearing. Regardless of which side of the NIC your on, Nicolau RELIED on an accurate list in his award. As unpredictable as he is, he could rule anywhere from just adding them as active pilots to throwing out the entire award. Like it or not, new guy, he still has jurisdiction.



No snapbacks. Expiration (per time-limited contract, negotiated by ALPA) of the concessions. The appeal will continue. Nothing you say on this chat will change our resolve.



I heard the exact same thing from one of the major players in MDA. They got a lot at stake not folding on this. hp, we’re getting less interested in your generalizations and legal pontifications. They border on…well, you must be bored to tears.

Once again. The MDA suit will have NO bearing. I checked PACER and I don't see anything referencing a meeting for a settlement. ALPA wouldn't settle anyway with an admission of guilt after having come so far. The MDA suit is dead in the water. They're looking for a monetary settlement and nothing more and even that's not going to happen.

And has for east resolve - its fading and fading fast.

 

[ClueByFour]

Yes I agree. The company won't risk liquidation to force the Nic. A fair seniority integration will be an absolute requirement to any save the company restructuring deals or merger agreements. No judge will risk company failure and the loss of all the employees jobs just to force an unfair pilot seniority integration.

You still don't get it: it's shortly going to be out of the company's hands. Once Wake issues his injunction, that's it (assuming the 9th does not overturn it). Game, set, match.

 

[ClueByFour]

We'll see how MDA, the 9th circuit, LOA84 play out.

The best case with MDA (since Nicolau does retain jurisdiction) is he slots the pilots somehow. The betting line is that the 9th commends Wake's work and laughs at USAPA for paying Seeham. If USAPA loses the inevitable arbitration on the snapback, the pilots who forced this nonsense will have shot several years, several million dollars in dues, and left money on the table for essentially nothing (and, a cause that any rational human could've seen a mile away as a nonstarter).

Im reading arguments, ad naseum. Not reading a "source." You know, something like the Supreme Court's decision in Hudson Vs Chicago Teachers Union. Point is, hp, feel free to speculate if it empowers you. Ill rely on the Hudson ruling. Thats where the context is, not in your legal pastes of marginal relevance.

You may try actually reading Hudson

We hold today that the constitutional requirements for the Union's collection of agency fees include an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker, and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending.

See, the West class can mount, under Hudson, a challenge to the fee. And because of Ellis, the test will probably not result in a favorable outcome for USAPA.

Last time you tried this, it was with Ellis V Railway Clerks and managed to confuse the test with the outcome. This time, you've essentially done the same thing.

Read it before you quote it. It helps. A lot.

 

[Megasnoop]

Mega,

I answered your question as asked. In my post that raised your question I even stated that I had thought that the plaintiffs were not going to raise that issue and I was personally surprised that they had.

Adding germane to damages might be a reach. muddy-up the case? Besides, the East objectors are already working on that. I've heard They've got a long-time CLT ALPA-phyle whose a CPA with all kinds of Anagrams after his CPA thing working on a presentation on germane/non-germane fees. In fact another of the objectors is a DuQuesne law school graduate (non-current PHL-based). I hear he's working with the CPA on a suit over germane of DFR and RICO. So at least they dont have to spend a fortune on their own lawsuit. All they have to do is get the Supreme court to reverse a 25-year-old decision. Like that's going to happen? Who knows, maybe they'll file out in PHX and catch Wake.

I'm sorry but I don't have a pile of legal authority to bring to the discussion.

Just looking for that Al Gore "Controlling Legal Authority." None of this means much of anything. All this will sort out in the 9th, in LOA84 arbitration and maybe in a Hudson case over the next year (years). Meanwhile, not talking legal stuff, I really see some gut-check show-downs coming. Players are Parker, USAPA, AOL, MIGS, Nicolau, MDA & Nicolau (the arb himself, not the award). I know, not in your expertise, but thats where this mess is heading, hp.

 

[Tiger 1050]

I know, not in your expertise, but thats where this mess is heading, hp.

Okay I got sucked in again but I have just one question for Mega. Mega do you have any formal law experience or education? I wonder because you seem to quote a lot of "legaleeze" and are amazingly confident about it. Just wondering...